June 14, 2013

I'm Transsexual and I Oppose Employment Non Discrimination Act H.R. 1755 & S. 815

There is No Human Right To Infringe Upon Any Individual Right


As an openly transsexual woman, a person born genetically male having been undergoing physical, physiological, mental & spiritual transition to female, and having been living as, presenting as, and identify as female on a daily basis for the past 4 years, I oppose the Employment Non Discrimination Act, aka ENDA, H.R. 1755 & S. 815.
Employment Non Discrimination Act ENDA H.R. 1755 & S. 815.

Those of you who know me know that my political and legal points of view are firmly aligned with the Libertarian ideals and philosophies, and it is due to these values that I have this conflict with ENDA as it currently stands with its blanket inclusion of gender identity and expression.   The problem with this bill is not its protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but of its lack of precise specificity in regard to gender identity and expression because as it now stands, the proposed bill is a severe infringement on individual rights, as all such bills for "the common good of all" always tend to be.  More specifically, the bill infringes on ones private property rights, as well as the rights of freedom of association and ones right of choice.  There is no equality when a law oppresses the right of one to accommodate the affirmed right of another.

No governmental body, force nor law and legislation has ANY right to deny ANY individual their right of choice and to decide for their own self what is in their own best interests, nor of that affecting their property, nor the fruits of their labors.

Sexual orientation alone IS deserving of such anti discrimination protections, because sexual orientation is not a recognizable and visible characteristic that can be recognized nor known without actually knowing the individual on an intimate personal level..  Simply to say, you don't know who is gay or not by just looking at them, unless they told you so, therefore, if you hired such a person and then later learned about their sexual orientation after the fact, I agree that it should be unlawful to terminate such person's employment on these grounds as their sexual orientation does not affect their work performance and duties, nor is it a risk to your business, clientele or bottom line, etc.   Simply put, a gay or lesbian person presents no risk of loss nor any other dangers to a business or property owner because of their sexual orientation, however, the same can not be said in regards to gender identity and expression.

Gender identity and expression are in several various instances easily recognizable and visibly apparent characteristics, and in several instances, can be a big problem for one's business operations, can be a problem for one's bottom line, and affect their customer base, daily operations and more.   What happens if ENDA as it is in its current form is passed, and a large burly guy named John Q Brickshithouse who works at Freedom Ironworks in the Bible Belt of Southern USA decides he wants to suddenly show up to work dressed as a woman, and express long repressed feelings of gender expression?   Should John Q Brickshithouse be fired for showing up to work improperly dressed to perform the duties for which he was hired for?  How about for causing a disruption of normal day to day operations?  How about for causing productivity to go down, because other employees were too occupied with discussion over John's choice to show up to work in a dress.   How about for causing profit loss because customers, clients, etc chose to disassociate with the business due to John being employed there?   One simply does not stop doing business with a company because they employ a gay person, because it's not a recognizable and visibly apparent characteristic... However, John Q Brickshithouse sticks out like a sore thumb and there's no chance in hell ANYONE on earth would EVER think he is a woman, and it CAN affect business, profits, productivity, and much more within the work place.

As a transsexual woman, YES it is difficult to find a job, because YES people do exercise THEIR CHOICE to not hire me, and that is their RIGHT to do so, because it is their PRIVATE PROPERTY and they are free to voluntarily associate with whomever they wish, and it is not within the legal scope and authority of the US government to use coercion and force to oppress, infringe upon and violate ones INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

It is the right of the individual to protect their own interests against loss and risk, and in my opinion, gender identity and expression in several types of work places and businesses, CAN present a risk, and CAN cause losses, notwithstanding location, because location alone presents a whole new set of problems.. I assume I don't have to spell it out for you and illustrate examples, such as what could happen in such places like in the deep south US, several portions of the Farmlands, or even the Mid West, etc, etc.

What if I, as a property owner, engaged in business, simply do not want to hire someone like John Q Brickshithouse simply for the fact that such person looks like a freaking IDIOT dressed as a woman?

Also, ENDA needs to be more specific in its definitions and terms insofar as what the limits are on protections for gender identity.  Certainly being transsexual is not by choice, however, there are too many instances and examples within "gender identity" & expression that ARE by choice, and DO present risk..   The bills for ENDA need more specificity and are dangerous infringements to personal liberty in their current form.

3 comments :

  1. unfortunately the bill was passed in Senate. Hopefully it's killed in House

    ReplyDelete
  2. I read with interest your critique of a Non Discrimination Act in hiring, pointing out that even as a transgender person you oppose it on the Libertarian principle that it infringes the right of employers to discriminate against employees to protect against disruption of their business profit and workplace stability by customers and coworkers who are used to discriminating on various bases.
    While the principles of Libertarianism possess a certain attraction, I am at a loss as to how historical social change can take place within the society if there are not protections of minority and out-of-power majorities.
    It took a civil war to abolish slavery, a very long struggle to achieve voting rights for women, and almost a century after slavery to end segregation. Today the struggle for justice is for gays, lesbians and, I guess, transgender persons. The movement to combat spousal abuse, child abuse, sexual slavery, and other societal injustices, based on the entitlements of property ownership, traditions of fear and prejudice, and impotence of the persons abused to defend themselves, is now getting off the ground and seeking to make progress with the help of the law.
    I would really appreciate your thoughtful response to my question: how would the various developments of social progress--from slavery to civil rights, women's suffrage to women's rights, and gay, lesbian, and transgender rights--be able to progress without social movements giving them expression finally by protecting the rights of minorities and powerless majorities against the assumptions of "might makes right" for the powerful.
    Your support of guns suggests that you put your faith in the use of force majeur, which should be a last resort, when all else fails. As an historian, I am inclined to put my faith in the efforts of the last 500 years of the attempts at the rule of law. As a youthful anarchist, I gradually came to realize the the absence of central government was not freedom, but the descent into lawlessness, with the intolerable capriciousness of anarchy replaced simply by local mafia-styled warlords who had regional powers and were constantly in conflict with neighboring warlords. In short, Libertarian opposition to the rule of law does not engender greater freedom, but anarchy and a state of continuing conflict in which the only one's who have any modicum of liberty or freedom are those in unrestrained power, and only so long as they can wield unfettered power--which of course is no freedom at all, since they constantly dread being killed by rival regional war lords.
    I hope you can teach me something. I enjoyed reading your defense of your position. You are obviously educated and write well.
    Look forward to your answer.
    Thanks,
    Walter R.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would really appreciate your thoughtful response to my question: how would the various developments of social progress--from slavery to civil rights, women's suffrage to women's rights, and gay, lesbian, and transgender rights--be able to progress without social movements giving them expression finally by protecting the rights of minorities and powerless majorities against the assumptions of "might makes right" for the powerful. I am really hopeful that you won't blow me off.
    Thanks, Walter (Don't know technically how to send this except by the Anonymous choice, Sorry.)

    ReplyDelete